Tolerating the intolerant extremists
| by John S. Pinto The headline reads: “Two terrorists killed in Delhi encounter.” The story goes on to say that two HuJI militants wanted in connection with serial blasts in Delhi and Ahmedabad were killed in a fierce encounter in Jamia Nagar in the south of Delhi. While terrorism may have receded in our consciousness, it is still very much a force. It is time that we put it at the forefront of our thinking. While no planes are being aimed at buildings, Islamic terrorists are curtailing our freedoms in more subtle ways. A few years ago, Danish cartoons in a newspaper sparked Muslim violence. The response of the European Union Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security (who came up with this name?) proposed that newspapers exercise prudence on certain subjects involving religions beginning with the letter ‘I.’ Italian writer Oriana Fallaci, who observed the contradiction between Islam and the Western tradition of liberty, was being sued in France, Italy and Switzerland by groups who said that her opinions were not merely offensive, but criminal. In France, author Michel Houellebecq was sued by Muslim groups who believed that the opinions of a fictional character in his novels were criminal. In Canada, author Mark Steyn, was sued by the Canadian Islamic Congress, because in his review of the book, “Prayers for the Assassin,” he used some quotes from the book. It is said that in the West, we live in multicultural societies. It seems that in the tolerant West, we tolerate the intolerant. Islamic extremists’ ‘honor killings’ have made their way from Pakistan and Yemen to Germany, the Netherlands, Toronto and Dallas. This terrorism has entered a new phase. It is being played out in our courts and legislatures. The British government recently announced that it will issue Sharia-compliant Islamic bonds. There is a report that a local government council in New Hampshire prohibited its workers from having knickknacks representing the Winnie the Pooh character, Piglet. It was done, in deference to and in fear of Islamic radicals. About 20 years ago, the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued his fatwa against the novelist Salman Rushdie, a person of Indian descent, who lived in Britain. Large numbers of British Muslims marched the streets calling for Rushdie to be killed. The British government was indifferent. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, “I well understand the devout Muslim’s reaction, wounded by what they hold most dear and would themselves die for.” Rushdie replied, “There is only one person around here who is in any danger of dying.” |
John Pinto's column